Ansel Adams TriX bears what relation to....

Tom Stanworth · Aug 8, 2006

I am genuinely curious about this one and I know the topic has come up before:

I love TriX 400 in 120 but know this film is not available in sheet - only the 320 variety which I hear is a very different film with v long toe more suited to studio use. I have never used it.

I am sure the various TriXs have been changed much over the years but see many LF users still swearing by TriX in HC110 Dil B. Is this combo today anything like what Ansel used? I mean, did he use a 320 speed version which was similar to the 320 speed variant we now have or was his an ancestor of the 400 variety which is recommended for outdoor use.

I ask as the 320 version of the film sounds from the literature and many comments wholly unsuitable for outdoor use, yet many people use the stuff for LF landscapes. I know there are no right or wrong answers and these things come down to personal tastes but// are people trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole by trying to adhere to Ansel's formula (When he perhaps used a film which had a very different curve and was more suited to outdoor use??) or is this 320 stuff really great outdoors? I presume that the likes of Roman Loranc cannot be daft and also presume they are using the 320 variety as the 400 sheet has not been avaiable for a long time.

I am partly curious for the heck of it and partly because I have moved from HP5 to TriX400 in 35mm and 120 (very happy with teh shift too) and would consider doing the same in LF (320) if I were likely to get results resembling the 400 variety. I might just have to buy a box some time, but would like to hear thoughts first.

John McCallum · Aug 8, 2006

Hi Tom. I use the TXP320 a lot. Like you now, I prefer both the 400 and 320 a great deal over HP5. To help with the longer toe on the sheet and 120 film, I rate it at half speed to push it up the curve a bit and give the shadows better separation.
With only one extra stop exposure the negs are a bit more dense and have much better shadows. It's particularly necessary to watch out for high subject brightness ratios with tri-x as the highlights can block up with overexposure. Need to be controlled with development so they don't. Easily assessed with some prudent testing.
Hope this helps a bit.
best, John.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 8, 2006

Before the current TXP sheet film, there was TXT sheet film, which was another 320 speed sheet film with a long toe, similar to TXP. I've been shooting both outdoors for years, as have many others who like the look of Tri-X. It is simply nonsense that this is exclusively a "studio" film. Test it like any other film; learn its limits and its strengths, and it will do what you want it to do.

juan · Aug 8, 2006

While Ansel mentioned Tri-X and HC110, he also mentioned using a lot of other film and developer combinations. I would suspect that Fred Picker did more to popularize Tri-X and HC110b than did Ansel. I used it for years before Kodak began screwing with the emulsion and stopped making it in some sizes such as 2x3. The current sheet film works perfectly well outdoors - it's just like any other film - you have to use it and figure out how it works best for you.
juan

Ray Heath · Aug 8, 2006

Tom, does any of this matter, go out and create your images, Ansel's have already made

photobum · Aug 8, 2006

All I use in L/F is Tri-X. 95% of which is outdoors. I refuse to be intimidated by any film snob who thinks his silver bullet is the only way to go. Anyone who rags that crap on you is insecure. Demand to see their prints. The same thing goes for lens and developer snobs.

Use whatever works for you. The longer you use what works, the better you get.

Tom Stanworth · Aug 8, 2006

Ray Heath said:
Tom, does any of this matter, go out and create your images, Ansel's have already made

Does it matter? Yes and no as made clear in the thread - it was not a burning question, no. John Mccallum actually posted something very useful as have some others, in that overexposure helps lift exposure of the shadows up from the toe giving good seperation.

My curiosity was:

1. Always been fascinated in those who copy formula of the greats with little idea why. I am sure many use them because they love them and find the materials work for them. Others because it gives them confidence.

2. Wondered how much things had changed over the years in regards to 'TriX' bearing in mind that I was aware that changes had been made but unsure as to what they meant.

3. My use and like of TriX 400 (The new version at least, I never used the older versions or the 320) was made clear and wondered what the 320 version was like comparatively. Thanks to helpful comments I wil give it a shot and if I can get a look similar to the 400 version I am sure I will ditch my HP5 in sheet also, as I have done for 120 and 35mm.

You comment was rather insulting and quite unhelpful. I do get out and take images (try looking at my gallery. It contains a fair few images using very 'unfashionable' materials in some cases....Tmax Dev and FP4...with APX or TRIX ...) using a variety of materials in no way associated with the greats. Before you intimate that a person is a sheep attempting to find a big name imitating 'silver bullet', I would suggest you do your homework and read things properly.

Tom

ChuckP · Aug 8, 2006

I like to use the Tri-X when I want more drama in the photograph. I also over expose by about 1 stop to get shadows up in the curve. The film curve will tend to make mid tones darker and so the higher tones will stand out more against them. Works nice on overcast days and for snow. I like HP5 for a softer look. I would say try the two out on various subjects. But its very hard to get both exposed and developed perfectly for the subject for a really valid comparison. I haven't done this the proper way. So my thinking may be all off. I just use the Tri-X for subjects I want to look harder and HP5 for those looking softer.

df cardwell · Aug 8, 2006

TXP is a portrait film. It is designed to compress shadows and expand highlights.

If you shoot a softly lit, dead evenly lit scene, TXP will ALWAYS make the shadows darker and the highlights brighter. It's supposed to.

It works well outside if the light is flat and and has lots of fill from everywhere.

Like, out west. In the mountains or prairies. You think Ansel's scenes are representational ? That they LOOKED like that in real life ? NO.

The TXP ( portrait films ... Strand used an earlier Kodak portrait film ) are wonderful for some things, and awful for others. This is WHY Kodak made a variety of emulsions for different purposes.

TriX, HP5, TMax400 all give longe straight lines, resulting in softer shadows and highlights BY COMPARISON to TXP. In reality, they are.... REALISTIC.

The problem folks run into 'doing what Ansel did' ( or Fred, or anybody ) is you are using THEIR answer to YOUR problem.

BTW... the 'greats' use the right materials for the job. HCB/Smith, et al couldn't have gotten anywhere with TXP. It was perfect for Ansel.

That's the beauty of photography. Visit the manufacturers' sites, and learn how to read a curve shape. A quick glance will tell you if you're picking the right film/developer combination... or if your results are what they oughht to be.

d

Tom Stanworth · Aug 8, 2006

df cardwell said:
TriX, HP5, TMax400 all give longe straight lines, resulting in softer shadows and highlights BY COMPARISON to TXP. In reality, they are.... REALISTIC.

d

OK, I understand that TXP in HC110 results in an upwept curve giving relatively greater highlight seperation. But I also thought that a straight line film such as HP5, Delta...Tmax should give harder more contrasty shadows rather than the softer shadows you state above. I thought longer toe films such as TXP would give less well seperated softer shadows. Might be a phrasiolog thi but can you explain what you mean above?

Cheers,

Tom

df cardwell · Aug 8, 2006

TXP increases density ( in the shadows ) subproportionally to the increase in exposure. SO, yes, looking at only this part of the picture, the shadows can 'softer'

HOWEVER, the loss of speed in the lowest zones, compared to TMax400, et all, means you simply cannot penetrate the shadows as you can with 'straight line films'.

The effect ( of shooting TMY over TXP ) is like adding two zones between I and V . It's hard for me to describe ( sleep deprived at the moment. Go try it. )

raucousimages · Aug 8, 2006

Don't get caught up in the mindset of "But Ansel (fred, edward, albert, helmut Etc.) used..." They all used a variety of film, paper and chemical combinations. Some times out of choice some times because that is what was at hand.

Right now I am shooting HP5+, FP4+, Tri-X (320 & 400) Plus-X Delta (100, 400), Tmax (100, 400, 3200,) Litho and Ekta-pan frozen in 1979.
I have nine film and six paper developers, four fixers two stops, two hypo clears and eleven papers.

I do keep fair notes on my work and if my work ever came to any importance how confusing will that be. I will laugh my ass off from the grave if I ever hear " But John used Ekta-pan in Hyfinol to..." I use that combination because I have hundreds of sheets of film and over fifty gallons of developer, I get good results and it was FREE.

Remember these were starving artists most of the time, they used what they had on hand. Ever wonder why Weston's prints are an odd size? He used the cardboard that came in his shirts from the cleaners as mounting board. Why? Because he didn't need to go buy it.

Tom Stanworth · Aug 8, 2006

racous,

Absolutely. I could not give rats @ss which big name is using what but The Tri X family was alien to me until recently and I now love the new TriX400 in roll and 35mm. As for the TXP320 flavour I have zero experience on this and assumed it was popular for a reason. Seeing that it is not 'recommended by Kodak' for outdoorsy stuff, I wanted to find out more what was going on here. As for the earlier suggestion to look at manufactures sites..if I did that I would only use TXP in the studio!

I will give some TXP a go. Presumably the TXP320 in 120 roll is the same stuff as the sheet so I need only burn a roll rather than a box of sheet. Same stuff / close enough to give me an idea?

As brought up before, HP5 (unlike TXT) appears possitively morbid in flat light . A huge boost in dev time increased grain, blew out highlights nd then never really looked good. TriX 400 solved that problem for me in the British overcast weather! In flat light as stated it still gives punchy images with a wonderful classic grey scale.

Theres a lot of soft light in the UK and I found HP5 far too subtle. Just cranking up the contrast in the print or developing neg just did not look right as I guess the curve stayed the same shape.

Tom

df cardwell · Aug 8, 2006

Tom

A way I deal with the scene you described is my giving ' minimal agitation' and increasing the development itme. The effect is to 'push' the shadows whilset 'pulling the highlights, and retain normal contrast through the midtones.

Used with a film like HP5, TX, or T Max 400, it gives full speed ( I measure it at the midtones ) well seperated shadows and gentle highlights. With Xtol or DDX, it isn't hard to hold onto the lovely, glowy, overcast sky. It's a very old-fashioned technique, and it is reliable.

For a starting point, it works well to double the normal development time,
but only agitate 15 seconds at the beginning, and 15 seconds every fifth minute.

Aculux, Rodinal, and many common developers will work well this way. Diluted D76 is fine with it. HC-110, however, doesn't like it as well, for it tries to build an upswet curve --- fighting the desired effect.

Time for lunch: best of luck

don

Stephen Benskin · Aug 8, 2006

TXP is considered a studio film, but why? There's less flare in the studio than in exterior situations. When you factor this in, compression of the shadows will be similar. BTW, TXP 120 has a different curve than TXT 4x5. I found that the 4x5 Tri-X toe falls somewhere in between the slope of 135 Tri-X and 120 Tri-X.

As a minor picky point, veiling flare in the shooting and printing will compress both the highlights and the shadows of a straight-line film. In addition, tone reproduction theory contends that the gradient of the midtone section of the reproduction must exceed the midtone of the original subject in order for the reproduction to be considered of quality. So no film reproduces reality nor do you want it to (with the exception of copy film).

John McCallum · Aug 8, 2006

Tom, I'd have to agree with you about HP5 in the lighting conditions that you describe and it's exactly why I use TXP in those (often my favourite) conditions for landscapes. Unfortunately, here from a photographers perspective we are rather cursed with very clear conditions when the sun comes out - no haze. In these situations I often move to Ilford Delta, because controlling TXP is just too hard for me. Holding the highlights whilst still trying to retain any shadow details just loses any contrast in the midtones, which were struggling in the first place.
I'm probably just adding to Chuck's comments here. Incidentally, if you've ever seen one of his prints, you'll know his comments are worth a barrow load.

Incidentally a second vote for Don's "old fashioned technique". I've also found it to be very useful for gaining control. Another fun technique to try (that has been discussed here extensively) and will give increased 'local' contrast is Rodinol 1:200 or 1:100 depending on lighting conditions, for 90mins aggitating 15secs every 20mins.

Best, John.

Stephen Benskin said:
...In addition, tone reproduction theory contends that the gradient of the midtone section of the reproduction must exceed the midtone of the original subject in order for the reproduction to be considered of quality. So no film reproduces reality nor do you want it to (with the exception of copy film).

Interesting, I had always assumed TXP in 120 and 4x5 were the same. But then I don't use med format. About the midtones comment "reproduction must exceed ... etc" - presumably you are talking a shift in tonal values? or lift and separation? If this is true, I'd agree. But it is just a matter of taste. Who defines quality?

df cardwell · Aug 8, 2006

I had always assumed TXP in 120 and 4x5 were the same

It is.

TXT is discontinued.

Alex Hawley · Aug 8, 2006

I could be totally happy with only using TXP and HC110 in LF. The only reason I moved away from it was it got way too expensive in 8x10. I still prefer TX in 35mm or 120 souped in Rodinal. HC110 gets a bit grainy in the smaller formats when enlarged.

I have found that J&C 400 is as near to TXP as anything else and doesn't have the tendency to blow out highlights. It is still capable of excellent contrast yet it can do a pretty fair job of compressing excessive contrast without too much fiddling. Never have souped it HC110 though, so I can't comment on that aspect.

Stephen Benskin · Aug 8, 2006

Interesting, I had always assumed TXP in 120 and 4x5 were the same. But then I don't use med format. About the midtones comment "reproduction must exceed ... etc" - presumably you are talking a shift in tonal values? or lift and separation? If this is true, I'd agree. But it is just a matter of taste. Who defines quality?[/QUOTE]

Psychophysics. Where do you think concepts such as film speed come from? Now, what allows so many different systems, personal approaches and theories to "work" are the parameters of acceptable quality.

When you compare the gradient of the print to the original scene, compression of the shadows and highlights don't influence the perception of quality as much as the midtones. I believe the gradient needs to be at least 1.10.

df, yes TXT is discontinued in name, however, I don't think that invalidates my analysis of those emulsions. And as far as I know, for the most part, the "new" films are just produced on a different alley. And since I haven't tested these as extensively as the older emulsions, I didn't comment on them.

phfitz · Aug 9, 2006

Hi there,

Tom, thanks for the thread, interesting.
Everyone, thanks for the input, helpful

Sorry, but I can't resist, this is too funny.

Ansel Adams' 'silver bullet' TriX - hc100b appears to be the one film that is intended, designed, and engineered to the n'th degree to produce the 'William Mortensen' look, great mid-tones, stellar highlights and the shadows fall where they will. I think that's hilarious.

Just a thought.

Wade D · Aug 9, 2006

I've been using Tri-X 320 4x5 for many years. If the exposure is correct I have always got good shadow and highlight detail. The beautiful tonality of Tri-X has always been the main selling point for me. I had some minor problems with highlight blocking with 35mm and 120 Tri-X but they were easily corrected.
My developer of choice is good old D-76.

Lachlan Young · Aug 9, 2006

phfitz said:
Ansel Adams' 'silver bullet' TriX - hc100b appears to be the one film that is intended, designed, and engineered to the n'th degree to produce the 'William Mortensen' look, great mid-tones, stellar highlights and the shadows fall where they will. I think that's hilarious.

Funnily enough a good number of AA's most famous images were made with Agfa Isopan (a film with similar characteristics to FP4) rated at an EI of 64 and developed in FG7 - you could probably achieve a similar look by pulling FP4+ to EI 64 and developing in FG7 with little need for the zone system!

Lachlan

Ray Heath · Aug 9, 2006

woa Tom,
just a little too sensitive there mate

I have done my homework, about 20 years of it

i've learnt a lot about photography, and photographers -

there are no short cuts or 'magic bullets'

good photography is not easy

'good' photography cannot be defined

meaningful photography is not only about technical considerations, neither is it wholly about artistic considerations

and more recently, image makers on this site are reluctant to actually post images to the galleries, which is why I didn't bother to check out your work

having looked at your work now, it's great and I remember looking closely at your images a month ago, in fact I was even moved to comment on house 5

so, I have an opinion, to which I'm intitled, so sorry if my posting etiquette is a little harsh

phfitz · Aug 9, 2006

Hi there,

Wade D:
"The beautiful tonality of Tri-X has always been the main selling point for me."

'Kodachrome shows the blood, TriX shows the bleeding.' I forget who said that years ago.

Lachlan:
"Funnily enough a good number of AA's most famous images were made with Agfa Isopan (a film with similar characteristics to FP4) rated at an EI of 64 and developed in FG7 - you could probably achieve a similar look by pulling FP4+ to EI 64 and developing in FG7 with little need for the zone system!"

Why am I not suprised, I think AA learn more than a bit from Mortensen, like multiple-income streams. Mortensen was doing photography->enlarging->magazine articles->book series->workshops, I think he blazed the trail and set the patern for a whole generation of photogs who would hate to admit it.

I love 20/20 hindsight.

fparnold · Aug 9, 2006

Tom,

Not to suggest either magic bullets or obscure solutions, but I used to shoot HP5 (the 80s version) in the murky Pennsylvania winter and spring, and develop it in DK-50. It's possible that I'm completely bonkers, but I got nice tones, at least for portraiture, with that under overcast skies. I realize that by modern standards DK-50 is pretty harsh stuff for 35mm, but if you want to give HP5 another go, it's a suggestion.

On topic, my copy of "The Negative" shows results from Tri-X in dilute HC-110, with decreased agitation as a modern alternative to water-bath development. Very open shadows, within the limitations of the printing of the book. Unfortunately, that picture is not in the Corning show, so I can't compare for real.

Ansel Adams TriX bears what relation to....

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency